Law of Tresspass

lawfulness OF TORT LAW2002-N 20011/12 Lectures 3 and 4 Trespass to the Person Lectures 5 12Negligence everywherestep TO THE PERSON Reading Steele fling 2 to page 81 Street Chap 3 Winfield Chap 4. ASSAULT AND BATTERY Introduction Battery determinational application of pull back to a nonher person. Assault make out of the defendant which causes to the claimant level-headed apprehension of the infliction of an immediate battery on him by the defendant. Battery 1. The vulcanized fiber of the operation of D a)It moldiness be a positive act. b)D must have control over what he is doing. c)There must be force and contact. Collins v Wilcock 1984 All ER 374Wilson v Pringle 1987 QB 237. In Re F (Mental Patient Sterilization) 1990 2 AC 1 2. State of Mind ie. the relationship amidst trespass and negligence. Letang v Cooper 1965 1 QB 232 1964 3 WLR 573 1964 2 All ER 929 1964 2 Lloyds Rep. 339. line of reasoning that since Fowler v Lanning 1959 1 QB 426 1959 2 WLR 241 1959 1 All ER 290 . C must render that D acted intentionally or negligently. 3. Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984) 15 NIJB transferred malice 4. No consent by C and the burden is on C to prove it. Freeman v Home Office (No 2) 1984 QB 524 5. No vituperate need be proved. Assault 1.This means the act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of immediate battery. eg. pointing loaded taw shaking ones fist under Cs nose. tho not shaking fist from window of departing train. Thomas v NUM 1985 2 All ER 1, 24 2. Mere words are not assault however menacing there must be threatening acts Meades Case (1823) 1 Lew CC 184 No words or singing are uniform to assault. cf. R v Wilson 1955 1 WLR 493 However a)There is no clear authority on this rule. b)In the nature of things threatening words are usually accompanied by threatening gestures. c)Words accompanying a menacing gesture may negative ts cosmos an assault. Turbervell v Savadge (1669) 1 Mod. Rep. 3 2 Keb 545 situationStreet say s that it is preferable to treat this statement as merely an illustration of the principle that D must have caused C to apprehend an immediate contact rather than to make it a separate rule. A case to be distinguished is where there is a modifyal threat Ansell v Thomas 1974 Crim LR 31 See in any case Read v Coker (1853) 13 C. B. 850 3. Pointing a loaded pistol is obviously an assault. What if it is unloaded but C does not know this? There is one criminal case where it was the ratio that to point an unloaded gun at P is an assaultR v St George (1840) 9 C&P 483, 492. 4. If Ds blow is intercepted by a terce party this will still be an assault. Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C 349 34 R. R. 811. 5. The act of D need not produce actual fear just reasonable apprehension. 6. There can be battery without assault. FALSE IMPRISONMENT DefinitionThe infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly authorised by the law. Winfield. State of Mind This tort normally involves an int entional act in the whiz that D must intend to do act which is at least substantially certain to event the confinement.It is, however, a tort of strict liability in that there need be no intention to act unlawfully R v Governors of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans No. 2 2001 2 A. C. 19 Malice is irrelevant. On principle negligence ought to be enough. Accordingly, if a person locks a door being negligently unaware of the presence of somebody in the room, this should be imitation imprisonment. Street False wrongful. impoundment Every confinement of the person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a private house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the common streets Blackstone.The character of Ds act 1. There need be no actual incarceration. 2. Physical force is not necessary. Meering v Graham fresh Aviation Co 122 LT 44 3. The area of confinement may be very large. 4. Restraint must be complete. Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742 9 Jur 8 7 66 RR 564. 5. If a person has the means of escape, but does not know it, it is submitted by Winfield that his detention is nevertheless false imprisonment unless any reasonable man would have realised that he had an available outlet. 6. Act must be direct. 7. There must normally be a positive act rather than an omission.Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co 1915 AC 67 111 LT 660. Knowledge of C Herring v Boyle (1834) 1 CM&R 6 Car&P 4 Tyr 801 3 LJ Ex 344 cfMeering v Grahame White Aviation Co (Supra) Murray v Minister of Defence 1985 1 WLR 692 No proof of actual harm is necessary. INTENTIONAL PHYSICAL HARM OTHER THAN TRESPASS TO THE PERSON The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton An act wilfully done which is calculated to cause, and does cause, physical harm to a person is a tort, although it may not be trespass to the person or other specific tort. This principle was laid down by WRIGHT, J. in Wilkinson v Downton 1897 2 QB 57 76 LT 493.Upheld by C. A in Janvier v Sweeney 1919 2 KB 316 121 LT 179. In Wainwright v Home Office 2002 3 WLR all three settle in CA held the view that either actual intention or objective recklessness would suffice. protective cover from Harassment Act 1997 But see also Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997 AC 655 DEFENCES TO AN ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO THE PERSON Self Defence Main question is whether force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances. Prevention of trespass to land or ejection of trespassers from land Note that unless the trespasser is entering by force, D must ask him to leave before using force against him.Volenti Burden is on C to establish lack of consent. Parental or other authority needful accident Not relevant as a defence. Since Fowler v Lanning (supra) the burden has been on C to prove that Ds act was intentional or negligent. Failure by C to fulfil a reasonable condition This is a defence to false imprisonment. NoteRobinson v Balmain Ferry 1910 AC 295 Herd v Weardale (supra) D acting in support of the law Dallison v Caff ery 1965 1 QB 348 1964 3 WLR 385 1964 2 All E 610 cfHogg v Ward (1858) 27 LJ Ex 443.